On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 09:48, Jan Grant wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Brian McBride wrote:
>
> > We have a request to add a new test case:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20031010-comments/#entailment-from-inconsistent-graph
> >
> > essentially a gigo test case.
> >
> > Do the test case editors propose to add this test case? How many
> > implementations will pass it? If not enough, what do was say at request
> > to advance to PR?
> >
> > Brian
>
> PatH, might this be ok?
>
> To clarify, we accept that this entailment is true;
Er.. the way to show that we accept this entailment is true
is to put it in the test suite.
> however, in the hope
> of keeping the distinction between two concepts clear, we think that it
> would be more usefully illustrative to break the test case into two
> parts:
>
> - an inconsistency test which states that (original PFPS premise)
> rdfs-entails FALSE
>
> - a general ECQ test case (perhaps three such test cases) that state:
>
> FALSE
> entails
> <some random conclusion here, eg, conclusion from PFPS test case>
That suggests that false premises are typical in RDFS. But they're
not. It's only this one very, special case of XML literals that
allows falsehoods to be stated in RDFS.
I don't mind these two tests *in addition* to the one Peter
requested, but to do anything less than include his test
as suggested says to me that we do *not* accept that
this entailment holds, or that it's not illustrative
of a very special issue.
> with test cases for rdf-entails, rdfs-entails, rdfs+dt(xsd:integer)
> -entails
>
> The point of these to illustrate that any inconsistent premise can be
> used to entail any conclusion.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/